The new justice system as an old trade union

By Mero Baze

There are two different stances from the representatives of the new justice system toward the law and constitutional rights.

On one hand, a court adopts a regulation that limits transparency, public information and lawyers’ ability to freely practice their profession. On the other hand, judges react as a bloc against a law of the Assembly that sets the level of their pay rise.

In the first case, the Special Court of First Instance against Corruption and Organized Crime has adopted a regulation drafted by its head, which harms the transparency of judicial processes. It restricts journalists’ right to inform the public and makes lawyers’ work harder during proceedings, denying them the use of their work tools and the possibility of normal communication with their clients.

For this reason, journalists have turned to the Constitutional Court to request the annulment of the regulation’s provisions that harm freedom of information. Lawyers, on the other hand, have boycotted hearings, as they refuse to become puppets filling courtroom chairs without the ability to exercise the fundamental rights of defense.

But the new justice system has not only shown no concern over this clash with journalists and lawyers — it appears determined to deepen the crisis, giving no chance to dialogue and to changing the regulation.

The same justice representatives, on the other hand, refuse to accept a law proposed by the government and approved by the Assembly on raising their salaries, because it does not meet the expectations they set themselves.

Thus, judges who show no sensitivity to the constitutional norms of transparency, freedom of information and the exercise of the lawyer’s profession demand unconditional respect for every norm or decision linked to their financial interests.

Constitutional Court decisions are final and binding. The Assembly cannot ignore them and has the obligation to align legislation with the Constitutional Court’s orders. But that does not mean the Court can dictate to MPs how they should vote or itself determine the amount of salaries the Assembly should approve.

The Constitutional Court can set the boundaries within which the legislator must act, but it cannot replace the Assembly. MPs have the duty to respect the constitutional decision, but retain political and constitutional responsibility for the content of the law they vote on.

The Constitutional Court’s decision cannot be used as a blank check for judges to set their own salaries and impose the amount on the Assembly. That would turn a power that should oversee the enforcement of the law into a trade union that negotiates its own financial interests under pressure.

The paradox is that today we have a part of the justice system that limits transparency and accountability, jeopardizing the normal continuation of proceedings because of the lawyers’ boycott, while, on the other hand, it refuses dialogue with the government and opposes the law approved by the Assembly on its own salaries.

This is a grave moment for the professional integrity of justice institutions. They set one example when they are themselves subject to the law and another when they must respect the constitutional rights of journalists, lawyers and defendants.

When facing the government and the Assembly over salaries, judges behave like trade unionists. When facing journalists and lawyers, they behave like a government that refuses to be held accountable.

They no longer want anything to do with the law alone.